2026 Mid-Term Elections

[Toni]

Google points to an X post citing stock sales of $15.7B in 2020-21 and $13.6B in 2023. The post appears to assume the entire amount was taxed as long-term gain.

Plenty of money to fund his yacht and other hobbies. So, no need to to borrow anything as part of "buy, borrow, die". Why do you then assume he did?

Because that’s how billionaires minimize taxes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The thing is, work invariably and at a bare minimum requires the subsidization of the equipment to do that work.

This is not abstract, this is a physical fact: don't do the thing that makes the equipment keep going, equipment stop going, no work gets done by equipment.

When that's a human labor position, that means paying, at a bare minimum, what it takes for that person to live whatever share of their life covering that position costs them.

If any less is provided, specifically and especially for the human, this is an unacceptable outcome.

It does not matter what you think their contribution is "worth".

It does not matter how many other people could do the job or how easy they are to replace.

If you spend a cent less than that, you are saying that your work is worth more than the sustainability of a human life.

Hidden within this is the implicit assumption that everyone can produce at least as much value as it takes to sustain themselves.

Clearly, this is false, as some people are incapable of producing any value.

Welfare is the government's job, not the employer's.

 

[Jarhyn]

it assumes there's no value to management

No, rather, most of us don't think there's as much value to management as management thinks.

There's a BIG difference, there.

It just happens that management is usually in a position to "manage" compensation across the organization, and I'm pretty damn sure that's quite inappropriate, because of the whole illusion that because they are "in charge" they are "most important". That's not how it actually works, though.

Management produces all the value of a single "vital" contribution to the function of the business.

So does a dishwasher at a restaurant.

Hidden within this is the implicit assumption that everyone can produce at least as much value as it takes to sustain themselves.

No, the reality is that everyone, pretty much everyone can in fact do what it takes to sustain themselves in the conditions humans have existed through most of time.

In fact, it's pretty fucking easy.

I mean, there's that whole "most people die before they turn 1" problem, but that's not the point here.

The problem is that the resources that are required for people to do the things they have always done do not exist in the places or quantities necessary for people to live like that any more.

Instead, humans did something else, besides being (hopefully) excessively patronizing to people who should know such things:

We exchanged things like hunting and gathering and fishing and basket weaving for more abstract roles like "cleaning floors" and "washing dishes".

One farmer's hard work produces, for example, the raw materials capable of feeding a very large population. Each of us, for all our effort seems very slight, should be accorded at least the benefit of the doubt that their contribution to all this is equivalent to their sacrifice of not being able to be, say, a farmer or a gatherer or a basket weaver or flintknapper or arrow maker or sinew drier or some other task that, frankly, isn't that hard and yet is absolutely vital to the excess provided by specialization.

If someone wants to go to school and has every reason to think they would be good there but simply lack the means -- and many such people exist in the world -- then why should we deprive these people of their power to access the "value" that is their birthright?

And what do you do for the persons who do all that, and find themselves back sweeping floors and washing dishes because there just aren't the positions open that require software engineering anymore because dumbshits think an AI that isn't a cohesive accountable individual with an enduring ability to remember the reasons behind their choice (if any such reason existed) in designing software can somehow produce shippable code?

What do you do then?

These people are NOT incapable of "producing value", they just aren't necessarily capable of accessing a seat where the value they can produce will be produced!

So all you're doing here is abandoning the very obligations we have to these people to give them a share of the ridiculous excess on behalf of the fact that they are at least trying.

And frankly, if someone stops trying along the way because that contract continues to be broken? Then it's our obligation to try to fix that through restoring faith in that contract at the expense of society at large.

If you think welfare is the government's job, then the fruits of "growth" are the government's tax to pay for it, and force "the employers" through collection of taxes on "value" rather than "payrolls" to fund it because ultimately, it is the employers who are breaking the contract to share in their growth of excess.

 

[Derec]

Plenty of money to fund his yacht and other hobbies. So, no need to to borrow anything as part of "buy, borrow, die". Why do you then assume he did?

Because that’s how billionaires minimize taxes.

You think that they all do it is not a good reason to assume they do, or that Bezos did. As jonatha found, Bezos sold almost $30G worth of stock over three consecutive years, and paid tax on it. Why should we assume that he borrowed any money beyond that? Except your prejudice, of course.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And that's a rebuttal?

Yes.

The looters came by night, using the protests as a distraction.

That they came by night does not mean that they did not protest before.

The protesters were pointing them out, but the police didn't care.

Even if this is true, it does not show that protesters and rioters/looters/arsonists were separate groups. Some of the protesters were keen on more violent tactics, and other protesters disagreed. Not all protesters condoned the violence, but that does not mean that the violent ones were completely separate from the other protesters, or that they did not share the basic ideology of #BLM.

In the few cases that the rioters were prosecuted, and the media shared their stories in more detail, we see that the rioters were indeed part of the protests.
Man charged with arson in attack on Seattle Police Department's East Precinct

Federal law enforcement authorities said David-Ptts arrived in Seattle three days before the protest. After marching with the group in downtown, he was seen on video compiling trash and repeatedly lighting it on fire and feeding the blaze with more combustible materials over an 11-minute time frame captured on camera, federal officials said.

I.e. protester turned arsonist.

Did you not notice how protesters used fires as barriers?

This case being used as an example of protesters = looters pretty much shows I'm right.

 

[WAB]

You are not refuting him one bit.

And note that "workers are paid their contribution to production" is yet another guise for the labor theory of value. In practice it's a dog-whistle for "more", as the analysis never captures all of what does not come from that worker, and in would never happen in a sane market as an employer who pays the worker the full value of their work gains nothing, why hire them?

That assumes that there is no value to management or any of the support services that exist in most companies. It also assumes that the value of a worker’s labor is 100% equal to the increase in value added by his labor to raw materials plus cost of power to produce ( whatever is being produced). It’s not. The value of the final product is what the market determines it is.

Yeah, it assumes there's no value to management--the fundamental flaw underlying communism. We've just seen this in reference to Tesla--the idea that since the idea of the electric car existed that Tesla wasn't an innovation.

No one is saying that companies should not earn a profit. Everyone who works for the company deserves to be fairly compensated. While it is easy to say that labor should be compensated according to market forces, the absolute fact is that there can be and has been collusion among employers to limit compensation for labor. This is certainly what happened in my town for a very long time. Being geographically separated from any larger town/city by 50 miles, it was easy for employers to pay what they felt like and then denigrate their workers for being ‘unstable’ and not worth more pay. A number of millionaires were create this way: by underpaying for labor and feeling smug about it. And by enrolling their kids in the local Catholic school system and suppressing increases in property taxes that paid for the education of ‘their’ working class. Gotta keep ‘em down cause they sure weren’t keeping them happy.

You say that nobody is saying that--but I was pointing out it indirectly being said. You give the workers the full value, you just wiped out profit. (And you ignored the cost of their tooling.)

The stress of working multiple part time jobs or a full time plus part time job created the kind of stresses you’d expect; increased consumption of alcohol and other substances, increased stress, increased depression and family instability and domestic abuse along with increased housing instability. The rest of us paid for this by increased need for various social safety net organizations. Including policing. The millionaires enjoyed ski vacations and ‘cabins’ and ‘farms’ ‘to get away from it all.

Then the pandemic happened and people are earning much higher wages. Yes, there are still the working poor and demand for the local food shelves and section 8 housing. Groceries, gas and rent have gone up in price. But people are better off than they were. Because they are being better compensated for their work. And while there are still economic stresses, they have eased somewhat. Except for housing, which is an issue nationwide.

People are better off because Covid disabled/killed off enough workers to tip the balance. Fundamentally, that's the only way the balance tips--when you remove people from the labor pool.

And there's no reason to go ascribing local labor rates to collusion. You just had a glut in comparison to local demand. And, despite what you say about rural life, the reality is most of the good people leave for better opportunities.

No, I understand the value of management. But you are undervaluing the value of labor. I’m not suggesting that there should be no profits but profits that generate obscene wealth without any actual restraints on the ultra wealthy are wrong. Example: Epstein’s island. But there are plenty of of others. It’s not good for the individual or society.

People are earning more because Covid made employers actually deal with the fact that without labor, they had no business and also no customers.

I’ve says before and I’ll say again: the place I live is small enough that I know people at every strata of this society. I read a lot and I listen a lot. There are always jobs to fe found here—if you are willing to accept the pay and conditions. Employers here finally woke up to the necessity of paying labor. Guess what? There are still jobs to be found here. Not necessarily great or well paying jobs but for significantly more than minimum wage which was not true pre-COVID. I spent t a few years working for peanuts before deciding I could commute 100 miles a day because my kids were old enough to make their own dinner and do their homework. I immediately started earning almost $12/hr more than I ever earned in town plus good benefits and good working conditions and my annual raise was not $0.05/hr as it was in town. No, not exaggerating about that nickel an hour, sadly enough. And rich people are still rich. Well, one is dead now and a couple more are getting pretty old but still. Still plenty of poor people too but a more stable working class.

Your problem Loren is that you are doing well enough and you don’t like change and you absolutely love love love authority and see no reason that everyone couldn’t have things as good as you if only they had had the sense to be born male to well educated parents and with white skin and blonde hair and blue eyes.

Good fucking grief.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why not? It's reported to be a widespread (and effective) practice.

The reports I have seen talk about it in a rather vague way. Or do you have some more concrete reporting on it?

In any case, there is no reason to assume that e.g. Bezos borrowed money to supplement the average of $150M per year of declared (and taxed) income over those five years. At least I do not see any reason to think that. Do you? And no, "well, why not?" is not a reason.

Yeah, it's like he must be guilty because he's a billionaire.

What are we seeing him spend money on that would be more than $150M/yr?

I also wonder how much interest they're actually paying. The back might prefer Elon's IPO business to interest on a margin loan..

I would not touch Elon's IPO with a 10 foot pole. He is not the same Elon as during the Noughts. And while SpaceX itself has a lot of potential, he shackled it to his far more speculative AI business.

A 10' pole is getting way, way too close. Nuke from orbit is more appropriate.

Before he had big ideas and people around him that made them sensible. Now he's lost the controls, looks like a candidate for the rubber room. Starship launch #1 showed he was out of it--flame trenches are about a lot more than launchpad survival. Anyone who builds the big birds knows the issues. Clearly he didn't listen. And I get the feeling he's cutting corners elsewhere.

 

[southernhybrid]

So......when are you guys going to discuss the midterms instead of discussing tax rates, billionaires, while attacking each other? Just asking for a friend.

 

[ZiprHead]

Income is money or value received by an individual or business in exchange for goods, services, labor, or investments. It is the total consumption and saving opportunity gained within a specified timeframe, and serves as the foundation for measuring economic growth, assigning tax burdens, and evaluating wealth. [1, 2, 3, 4] - Legal Information Institute

It was a political decision to exempt stock gains from income.

It was necessary. Trying to tax gains results in a nightmare.

You're going to force anyone who runs a successful corporation to sell it off to pay the taxes. Major punishment for success.

How does that work?

You make a company that has a bright future but for now it's growing rather than making income.

You just taxed the owner out, you probably just destroyed the company.

A company that is growing instead of making income is most probably not paying their executive in shares of stocks.

And you still have no idea what's going on.

Nobody said they are being paid shares of stock.

That is the very essence of the argument being made, that the ceo class is being paid in stocks rather than 1040 taxable income. You are not this dense.

And what exactly is the value of the corporation? We can approximate it if it's widely traded, but stock prices in essence are the net present value of the expected total future earnings. That is horrendously sensitive to the discount rate used on figuring the value of future earnings, and thus horrendously sensitive to expected long term interest rates. And this is just a market consensus, not anything you can truly calculate.

When a company isn't widely traded it gets much worse. What is the value? We've seen tax games based on this--put a bunch of shares of fuzzy value into an IRA. The more specific the item and the less like things are traded makes it even fuzzier. I've seen an attorney throw up her hands over even ballparking the value of something.

What is a fuzzy value? The price of the share is the price of the share.

And not everything is that simple. Not all assets are shares of widely traded public corporations.

Consider the case I just mentioned. The asset was a share of a LLP who owned one asset--a chunk of land in the path of anticipated development. What is the value? Extremely variable based on how people evaluate the chance that development actually reaches that point. It's a share, not the whole land--no control over if or when any value would be realized.

So who said anything about a chunk of land in this situation? We're talking about extremely wealthy individuals who are paid in stocks specifically to avoid income taxes.

You asked what I meant by fuzzy value.

This whole argument is based upon people being paid in stock shares so they don't have to pay income tax. I have no idea where you are coming from.

 

[Derec]

So......when are you guys going to discuss the midterms instead of discussing tax rates, billionaires, while attacking each other? Just asking for a friend.

I posted (#950) about a candidate for NJ-12 Adam Hamawy who I am really concerned about. He is getting a lot of support from the left wing of the Democratic Party even though he had associations with the original WTC terrorist the Blind Sheikh. But I got no replies.

 

[Derec]

This whole argument is based upon people being paid in stock shares so they don't have to pay income tax. I have no idea where you are coming from.

If you are paid in stock, you still have to pay tax on it. You are confusing unrealized gains on stock that you already own, vs. receiving stock as compensation.

 

[Bomb#20]

... If that definition were correct, then if you have a rare tissue type and consequently some oligarch in a country where it's legal offers you a million dollars for your kidney, it would mean you have a million dollars of income even if you don't sell it to him and that million dollars serves as the foundation for assigning your tax burden. ...

The definition came from the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. I'll take their "brain damaged idiocy" over some stranger on the internet with absolutely no proof of actual training in the subject.

"some stranger on the internet with absolutely no proof of actual training in the subject". Sweet. You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you? The prosecution rests.

When you questioned the qualifications of the people that created the definition you made qualifications part of the subject.

I did nothing of the sort -- I didn't say a word about their qualifications. I only proved they were wrong. People can have arbitrarily fine qualifications and still be wrong. You'd have no patience for claims of Papal infallibility; why are you talking as though the rest of us should believe in Cornell Law School infallibility?

It's an actual description of you to us all here.

Yes, that is exactly what it is. Your description of me is 100% correct. So? Are you under the impression that a denigration of someone's qualifications has to be incorrect in order for it to be an ad hominem argument? You were pointing out a characteristic of me, not of my argument.

Most all of us are the same. No one knows your qualifications or why we should accept that Cornell is putting out brain damaged idiocy from you. You are nothing more than words on a screen.

Accept it from me?!? Nobody asked you to accept it from me. This isn't some competitive preaching forum where claims are supposed to be accepted on faith based on their source. It's an infidels' forum -- we're supposed to judge claims based on reason and evidence. Look at the words on your screen and consider the argument. Contemplate some oligarch in a country where it's legal offering you a million dollars for your kidney, and judge for yourself whether being offered a million dollars for your kidney would, in point of fact, be a "gain" in your "total consumption and saving opportunity" "within a specified timeframe". Judge for yourself that you could have him wire you a million dollars and then fly to Burma or wherever, have your kidney out, fly home, consume $100,000 in wild partying, and put $900,000 in savings bonds. Judge for yourself that that'd be an opportunity you gained during the year. You aren't relying on me to decide for you -- you're relying on yourself, on your own ability to reason, to figure out for yourself whether the scenario satisfies the definition of "income" you posted. My qualifications are immaterial -- your own reasoning does all the work so what do you need me for?

I also see more selective editing on your part. You probably realized your statement made you look quite foolish so you didn't want to repeat it.

I realized my argument was all that mattered so I left out the extra commentary. If you have an issue with that, here it all is again.

That's not an argument; that's proof by blatant assertion. The second sentence, "It is the total consumption and saving opportunity gained within a specified timeframe, and serves as the foundation for measuring economic growth, assigning tax burdens, and evaluating wealth.", was asserted without argument or evidence. Why would anyone believe such brain-damaged idiocy? If that definition were correct, then if you have a rare tissue type and consequently some oligarch in a country where it's legal offers you a million dollars for your kidney, it would mean you have a million dollars of income even if you don't sell it to him and that million dollars serves as the foundation for assigning your tax burden. That is evidently not what anyone actually means by "income".

Word definitions are itty-bitty scientific theories. But people persist in pulling them out of their asses and believing them without subjecting them to the most elementary tests.

The definition came from the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. I'll take their "brain damaged idiocy" over some stranger on the internet with absolutely no proof of actual training in the subject.

Feel free to point out anything you think is foolish and explain why.

The definition came from the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. I'll take their "brain damaged idiocy" over some stranger on the internet with absolutely no proof of actual training in the subject.

This is classic "argument from authority". Bomb offered an explanation as to why this definition, or at least your interpretation of it, makes no sense. Instead of offering your reasoning as to why you think it does, you retort with "but Cornell".

No,it's not. You are misinterpreting the argument from authority fallacy.

An argument from authority (or appeal to authority) is a claim where the opinion of an expert or authority figure is used as primary evidence. It becomes a logical fallacy when the cited source lacks expertise, is biased, or when the claim is contradicted by a broader consensus.

Are you quoting that because you want us to accept it as authoritative? You didn't even say who you're quoting. According to Wikipedia, "all sources agree this is not a valid form of logical proof, and therefore, obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible". ... "Some consider it a practical and sound way of obtaining knowledge that is generally likely to be correct when the authority is real, pertinent, and universally accepted and others consider to be a very weak defeasible argument or an outright fallacy." ... "This argument is a form of genetic fallacy; in which the conclusion about the validity of a statement is justified by appealing to the characteristics of the person who is speaking, such as also in the ad hominem fallacy."

So now that we've thrown conflicting authorities at each other, let's evaluate your claim on its own merits. Why the bejesus would "the claim is contradicted by a broader consensus" have any bearing on when an argument from authority becomes a logical fallacy?!? Anything can be a broader consensus. Do you think the broader consensus that contradicted Darwin's claims at the time of the Scopes Monkey Trial made his opinion poorer evidence for anything?

Here's Wikipedia again:

"The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source or origin rather than their content. In other words, a claim is ignored or given credibility based on its source rather than the claim itself.

The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question. ..."​

Here's a typical example:

To nullify that law, they would have to demonstrate that the law itself is unconstitutional.

It's a different standard. It's not a perfect parallel by any means, but you could think of it like the difference between a criminal and a civil trial. In a civil trial, the prosecution only has to demonstrate a "preponderance of evidence", whereas in a criminal trial, they have to demonstrate "beyond a reasonable doubt". The bar is much higher.

For the original RvW, it was based on a judicial interpretation that prohibiting abortion was a violation of privacy. The constitution doesn't actually explicitly guarantee a right to privacy - that in itself is an interpretive view. The 14th says the state can't deprive citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. That has been interpreted several times to imply that we have a right to privacy in many aspects. So RvW was kind of an interpretation (that abortion is a matter of privacy) on top of an interpretation (that privacy is guaranteed by the constitution).

If it's passed as an actual federal law, then it stands on it's own. To be overturned, the courts would need to show that it's an illegal law - and I don't think there's anything in the constitution that would support that. It's still possible, sure... but much more difficult to do.

This particular SCOTUS has shown they have no problem doing the difficult.

Therefore we should all just give up? Abandon the entire concept of justice and riot in the streets?

The entire concept of justice has already been abandoned because if it hadn't, Roe V Wade would be the law of the land, Trump would have been impeached and then subsequently imprisoned.

The point I made was that it wouldn't be that difficult for this SCOTUS especially with Alito who can manufacture rationales out of thin air - to overturn a federal law on abortion.

Remember one of the arguments used to justify breaking RvW was made by a 17th century kook who believed in witches.

Remember the argument used to justify introducing smallpox immunization into the Massachusetts colony was made by a 17th century kook who believed in witches. The merit of an argument does not depend on the merit of the person who makes it.

 

[Bomb#20]

... We allow billionaires to have an outsize influence over every aspect of society, including law enforcement. They have far too great an influence over elections ( end Citizens United) and they have far far too great an influence over legislators and it appears these days, courts and federal and state agencies.

THAT undermines our democracy and what is turning our country into a kleptocracy. ...

In a democracy when the people want a government service they're supposed to vote to tax themselves to pay for it. What's turning our country into a kleptocracy is our culture of getting services by voting to tax someone else to pay for it.

... That's not what is happening. It's an incredibly stupid thing to say while the Right is actively working to cut back services to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy and big corp. If you cannot see that I cannot help you.

So now being allowed to keep more of your own money than somebody wishes you were allowed to keep is defined as stealing, is it?

Not worth bothering for another of your stupid analogies.

It wasn't an analogy. Toni and I were disputing what was turning our country into a kleptocracy, which means "rule by thieves". You appeared to be weighing in on our dispute by calling tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations an example of kleptocracy, i.e., to be implying that you considered them being allowed to keep more of their own money than you wish they were allowed to keep to literally be stealing. If that's not what you intended to imply, feel free to clarify what you meant.

 

[Bomb#20]

No,it's not. You are misinterpreting the argument from authority fallacy.

An argument from authority (or appeal to authority) is a claim where the opinion of an expert or authority figure is used as primary evidence. It becomes a logical fallacy when the cited source lacks expertise, is biased, or when the claim is contradicted by a broader consensus.

Broader consensus is that (almost) no country in the World considers unrealized increases of asset valuation as equivalent to "income".

Just because they don't declare it to be taxable does not mean they do not consider it to be income. It's either income, outgo, or stagnation. There are no other choices.

Why are there no other choices?

Were you alive in 1989? Let's assume you were. Think back to your life then. While you were minding your own business, some guy in Switzerland invented the Web. Was that either income or outgo to you? Should you have listed it on your taxes as a write-off, or else paid some tax on it? Of course not. So does this mean we should deduce that the invention of the Web was stagnation? Having zero immediate effect on you is not the same thing as stagnation. You are most likely a lot better off today as a result of that invention than you would have been if there were no Web -- nearly everyone is.

The obvious fourth choice is that other people are affected immediately but the effect on you is delayed. "Unrealized increases of asset valuation" is another way to say "other people change their minds". That affects those other people immediately, but the effect on you is delayed.

 

[jonatha]

This whole argument is based upon people being paid in stock shares so they don't have to pay income tax. I have no idea where you are coming from.

If you are paid in stock, you still have to pay tax on it. You are confusing unrealized gains on stock that you already own, vs. receiving stock as compensation.

There are ways to structure generous stock packages so that no tax is due at time of grant.

 

[ZiprHead]

This whole argument is based upon people being paid in stock shares so they don't have to pay income tax. I have no idea where you are coming from.

If you are paid in stock, you still have to pay tax on it. You are confusing unrealized gains on stock that you already own, vs. receiving stock as compensation.

I'm talking about both.

 

[ZiprHead]

... If that definition were correct, then if you have a rare tissue type and consequently some oligarch in a country where it's legal offers you a million dollars for your kidney, it would mean you have a million dollars of income even if you don't sell it to him and that million dollars serves as the foundation for assigning your tax burden. ...

The definition came from the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. I'll take their "brain damaged idiocy" over some stranger on the internet with absolutely no proof of actual training in the subject.

"some stranger on the internet with absolutely no proof of actual training in the subject". Sweet. You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you? The prosecution rests.

When you questioned the qualifications of the people that created the definition you made qualifications part of the subject.

I did nothing of the sort -- I didn't say a word about their qualifications. I only proved they were wrong. People can have arbitrarily fine qualifications and still be wrong. You'd have no patience for claims of Papal infallibility; why are you talking as though the rest of us should believe in Cornell Law School infallibility?

When you called the quote I provided "brain damaged idiocy" you most certainly discussed qualification. No one would take someone's word on an issue if they were known to be a braid damaged idiot.

It's an actual description of you to us all here.

Yes, that is exactly what it is. Your description of me is 100% correct. So? Are you under the impression that a denigration of someone's qualifications has to be incorrect in order for it to be an ad hominem argument? You were pointing out a characteristic of me, not of my argument.

It brings up the question of why we should accept your interpretation over Cornell's law school.

I'll not bother with the rest of your post. It's just your typical arguments over inane trivialities using a helluva lot of words. You're starting to remind me of Lumenproletariot.

 

[southernhybrid]

So......when are you guys going to discuss the midterms instead of discussing tax rates, billionaires, while attacking each other? Just asking for a friend.

I posted (#950) about a candidate for NJ-12 Adam Hamawy who I am really concerned about. He is getting a lot of support from the left wing of the Democratic Party even though he had associations with the original WTC terrorist the Blind Sheikh. But I got no replies.

It's good that you were on topic, but I read about the man you are criticizing and it sounds as if he's a pretty good person. He associated with the bad guy back in 1991 and that guy is now dead after serving a life sentence for his crimes. Why do some of us worry so much about something a person did decades ago, despite no evidence that they've committed any crimes themselves? I am not afraid of people who identify as Muslims as long as they aren't pushing their beliefs into government. What scares me are the White Christian Nationalists who are working hard to turn our country into a Christian theocracy.

Mandami seems to be struggling in the early months of his role as mayor of NYC, but it has nothing to do with his religion. It seems, based on what I've read about his early months as mayor to do with he lack of experience and idealism. He's not trying to convert anyone to become a Muslim. He's not using his personal beliefs as a way to change the city. I seriously doubt if Adam Hamawy wins his election that his past relationship with one bad guy in 1991 is going to have any impact on Congress. So, don't worry Derec. Trump and company are the real problem in the US and it could take decades to decrease the horrible impact he and his cult have had on our country.

Now, can more of you get on topic, instead of arguing about billionaires? I sure would like some of those who are running for Congress to talk about prison reform. Our prisons are disgusting, inhumane places for the most part. I've read many articles about the way prisoners are treated. Is anyone running even bringing up that topic?

 

[Toni]

... If that definition were correct, then if you have a rare tissue type and consequently some oligarch in a country where it's legal offers you a million dollars for your kidney, it would mean you have a million dollars of income even if you don't sell it to him and that million dollars serves as the foundation for assigning your tax burden. ...

The definition came from the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. I'll take their "brain damaged idiocy" over some stranger on the internet with absolutely no proof of actual training in the subject.

"some stranger on the internet with absolutely no proof of actual training in the subject". Sweet. You know that's an ad hominem argument, don't you? The prosecution rests.

When you questioned the qualifications of the people that created the definition you made qualifications part of the subject.

I did nothing of the sort -- I didn't say a word about their qualifications. I only proved they were wrong. People can have arbitrarily fine qualifications and still be wrong. You'd have no patience for claims of Papal infallibility; why are you talking as though the rest of us should believe in Cornell Law School infallibility?

When you called the quote I provided "brain damaged idiocy" you most certainly discussed qualification. No one would take someone's word on an issue if they were known to be a braid damaged idiot.

It's an actual description of you to us all here.

Yes, that is exactly what it is. Your description of me is 100% correct. So? Are you under the impression that a denigration of someone's qualifications has to be incorrect in order for it to be an ad hominem argument? You were pointing out a characteristic of me, not of my argument.

It brings up the question of why we should accept your interpretation over Cornell's law school.

I'll not bother with the rest of your post. It's just your typical arguments over inane trivialities using a helluva lot of words. You're starting to remind me of Lumenproletariot.

Beg to differ here: Lots and lots of people believe every bit of garbage that dribbles out of Trump despite it being a well known fact that he's a brain damaged idiot. Although to be fair, most of them deny that he's a brain damaged idiot. What is worse is that there are plenty of people in positions of power and influence who pretend to believe whatever comes out of his mouth, knowing full well that he is a brain damaged idiot.

 

[Toni]

So......when are you guys going to discuss the midterms instead of discussing tax rates, billionaires, while attacking each other? Just asking for a friend.

I posted (#950) about a candidate for NJ-12 Adam Hamawy who I am really concerned about. He is getting a lot of support from the left wing of the Democratic Party even though he had associations with the original WTC terrorist the Blind Sheikh. But I got no replies.

It's good that you were on topic, but I read about the man you are criticizing and it sounds as if he's a pretty good person. He associated with the bad guy back in 1991 and that guy is now dead after serving a life sentence for his crimes. Why do some of us worry so much about something a person did decades ago, despite no evidence that they've committed any crimes themselves? I am not afraid of people who identify as Muslims as long as they aren't pushing their beliefs into government. What scares me are the White Christian Nationalists who are working hard to turn our country into a Christian theocracy.

Mandami seems to be struggling in the early months of his role as mayor of NYC, but it has nothing to do with his religion. It seems, based on what I've read about his early months as mayor to do with he lack of experience and idealism. He's not trying to convert anyone to become a Muslim. He's not using his personal beliefs as a way to change the city. I seriously doubt if Adam Hamawy wins his election that his past relationship with one bad guy in 1991 is going to have any impact on Congress. So, don't worry Derec. Trump and company are the real problem in the US and it could take decades to decrease the horrible impact he and his cult have had on our country.

Now, can more of you get on topic, instead of arguing about billionaires? I sure would like some of those who are running for Congress to talk about prison reform. Our prisons are disgusting, inhumane places for the most part. I've read many articles about the way prisoners are treated. Is anyone running even bringing up that topic?

To be fair to Derec, I can see why prior lapses in judgement in associating with bad person/people might cause others to be a bit skeptical of your judgment.

For instance: We have heard Trump say that he hadn't been friends with Epstein for years and and as far as we know, that is true. We don't necessarily believe what he had to say about the reasons and I think most of us judge the hell out of him for his long time relationship with Epstein and their shared interests and behaviors. Now, in the case of a lot of people, that's just an example (Trump's/Epstein's shared pedophilia and sexual escapades) of Trump being far worse than the horrible person we have believed him to be.